Tag Archives: Irving J. Lee

This course was developed and presented on the Canvas Network by Steve Stockdale, Mary Lahman, and Greg Thompson. It is reproduced here under terms of the Creative Commons Share Alike License as published on Canvas Network from 13 January – 24 February 2014.

Module Map

In Module 2 we discovered the contributing factors and correctives for allness. In Module 3, we will continue to apply what we have learned about General Semantics to build more effective language behaviors.

Mary will lead this module based on excerpts from her PDF textbook, Awareness and Action. These excerpts can be read within the Canvas pages so it’s not necessary to download the PDF textbook. Because minor changes have been made to accommodate the online format and module numbering, we prefer and recommend you read the pages from within Canvas to complete the assignments. But you are welcome to download and read the complete Awareness and Action textbook.

Module Learning Objectives

After successfully completing this module, students will be able to:

Identify the GS premise that explains bypassing.

Explain the contributing factors to bypassing.

Explain why we why would we make the assumption that words mean the same to us as they do to another.

Identify the correctives needed to combat bypassing.

Explain how we can become sensitive to the contexts in which others are using words.

Module Activities

This week we will learn how to use GS principles to avoid bypassing. You will:

Complete the module reading, excerpt from Chapter 5, Bypassing, from Awareness and Action.

Watch another Lee video in which he explains bypassing.

Review basic aspects of verbal awareness.

Watch an episode of the Twilight Zone series titled “Word Play.”

Analyze character behaviors from a sample Case Study.

Participate in a Discussion related to bypassing.

Choose one other Case Study for further analysis (from Cases 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3).

Complete the module quiz.

Chapter 5: Bypassing

Missing Each Other With the Words that We Choose

In communicating with others, we often focus on the message instead of the person with whom we are interacting. We focus on words because we believe meaning is in the word. We forget Korzybski’s premise that “a map is not the territory” (the word is not the thing). Moreover, we must learn specific language behaviors needed to address bypassing, because as Anton proposed, “there is no not territory.”

Use the following questions and slides to guide your reading (excerpted from Chapter 5 in Awareness and Action, pages 47-52) and viewing of the Twilight Zone episode entitled “Word Play,” all on this page.

Why would we make the assumption that words mean the same to us as they do to another?

How can we become sensitive to the contexts in which others are using words?

Are there situations where doublespeak might be ethically defensible? Why?

What did you learn from watching the Twilight Zone episode entitled “Word Play”?

It is precisely because each of us sees and experiences the world differently that language becomes our most important means for coming to some kind of agreement on our individual experiences, on how we see the world. — William Lutz (1989, p. 6)

DEFINITION: BYPASSING

The map–territory analogy resonates because people know that any given map cannot represent all of its territory. Additionally, we know that because maps are self-reflexive, we confuse levels of abstraction. Now, we will discover that we still can miss each other’s meanings because we forget that a map is not the territory it represents: “If we reflect upon our languages, we find that at best they must be considered only as maps. A word is not the object it represents” (Korzybski, 2000, p. 58). The map represents the assumptions and experiences of the mapmaker. This section explores what happens when people do not recognize that meaning is in the mapmaker (person), not the map (word).

How many people can remember being sure that they understood what a teacher meant by “summarize the article” but later discovered that our interpretation of “summarize” and the teacher’s interpretation were very different? Haney (1992) explained this phenomenon as bypassing: “the listener presumably heard the same words that the speaker said, but the communicators seem to have talked past each other” (p. 268). The listener and speaker act as if the words mean the same thing to each person, but their interpretations are different. Similarly, communicators can use different words to refer to the same thing: some call a soft drink “soda,” whereas others refer to it as “pop.” Miscommunication often results because these assumptions are faulty and go unnoticed.

When I tell students that there will be a “quiz” during the next class period, I receive few inquiries concerning the nature of the assessment. Students might ask what material will be included on the quiz, but rarely do they ask about the number or type of questions, and how the score will impact their final course grade. Many times, because quizzes are used to judge comprehension of material not mastery, there is little impact on final grades. We miss each other’s meaning because we do not check the meaning each person intended, even if we are using the same words.

Consequently, we need to explore contributing factors that lead to bypassing. Once we discover why we do not routinely inquire about others’ meanings, we will be challenged to build new habits, such as paraphrasing and exploring contextual clues.

You may want to refer back to the Consciousness of Abstracting-Evaluating page in Module 1 to review bypassing in the context of other behaviors to be aware of.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: BYPASSING

Haney (1992) suggested that bypassing is caused by two assumptions: words have mono-usage and they have meanings. First, we operate under the assumption that words have mono-usage when we forget that words have more than one meaning. Haney (1992) advocated for “learning about the prevalence of multiusage in our language . . . [so we] will anticipate that words can readily be understood differently by different people” (p. 274). He noted numerous examples of “word coinage,” the invention of new word with acronyms, such as “AIDS” (p. 275), and of “usage coinage,” the new use of existing words, such as “high” (p. 277).

Similarly, Haney (1992) challenged readers to find words that were used in only one way: “for the 500 of the most commonly used words in our language there is aggregate of over 14,000 dictionary definitions!” (p. 274). Regional variations and technical jargon encountered daily compound this conundrum. How many times have you been unable to understand medical terminology used by a physician? Do conversations with a plumber and car mechanic make any more sense? How many people can follow the political jargon used to debate the national debt?

With a better understanding of multiuse language, we recognize that the assumption, words have meaning, also is inaccurate. We know from our understanding of general semantics that the “map is not the ‘territory,’ so there is no not territory,” so it follows that meaning in the person, not in the map (word). Similar to the inference–observation confusion, people take an uncalculated risk when they assume understanding based on words and nonverbal cues.

Moreover, we must remember that each person is operates from a particular cultural context. According to Hofstede (1984), cultures vary in how they manage power differences, are tolerant of ambiguity, value the individual or collective, and emphasize assertiveness or nurturance. Therefore, we may miss each other with meaning because we do not understand differences in attitudes and beliefs. As Morreale et al. (2007) explained:

In collectivist cultures, collective goals take priority over individual goals. People in collectivist cultures such as Japan, China, and Korea may find it hard to speak up and offer their opinions in a group setting, especially if those views are contrary to the group’s majority opinion. Their sense of loyalty precludes them from voicing dissenting opinions and disrupting the group. (p.64)

Finally, when people use language with intent to miscommunicate, they are guilty of “deliberate bypassing” (Haney, 1992, p. 286). Lutz (1989) called this phenomenon “doublespeak”: language that avoids or shifts responsibility . . . that conceals or prevents thought” (p. 1). Doublespeak is used to mislead and deceive. Lutz has written several books and many articles about forms of doublespeak that are used by organizational and political leaders; in particular, he identified four forms:

Euphemism: “an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid a harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality” (p. 2).

Jargon: “the specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group” (p. 3).

Gobbledygook: “a matter of piling on of words, of overwhelming the audience with words, the bigger the words and the longer the sentences the better” (p. 5).

Inflated language: “designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary; to make everyday things seem impressive; to give an importance to people, situations, or things that would not normally be considered important; to make the simple seem complex” (p. 6).

Unfortunately, we find many examples of doublespeak in politics, business, and education. For instance, when leaders use “collateral damage” to describe civilians who die in warfare and “re-engineering” to describe layoffs, they are employing euphemisms to mislead the public involved. Similarly, when administrators use jargon and long sentences, they may be trying to obfuscate, not elaborate. These examples motivate us to confront bypassing in personal and professional contexts.

CORRECTIVES: BYPASSING

Similar to the previous patterns of allness and inference–observation confusion, we recognize that we cannot fully eliminate bypassing. However, the following correctives will prevent as much bypassing as possible. These actions must become a habit, an immediate response during a communication event.

Be Person-minded, not Word-minded

Do you ever find yourself arguing with friends over silly questions? It might be that you are not at odds about the facts involved but merely disagreeing about the “label” that each person gives those facts. For example, when you consistently arrive 15 minutes late for family dinners, some members may interpret your behavior as disrespectful of “family time,” whereas other family members think that it is fine to disregard a cultural norm of being punctual.

We often forget that words are meaningless symbols until someone attaches meaning to them. One of my favorite ways to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of language is to watch the Twilight Zone episode, “Wordplay,” which can be found on YouTube. In the “Wordplay, Episode 1,” the main character, Bill, quickly discovers that the words people use do not make sense in the context in which the words are normally used. For example, as Bill leaves for work, the neighbor refers to their dog, which just had puppies, as an “encyclopedia.” When Bill gets to work, a customer discusses celebrating 17th wedding “throw rug,” meaning, of course, a 17th wedding “anniversary.” Later in the episode, when a colleague and Bill’s wife both refer to “lunch” as “dinosaur,” Bill knows that he has entered the “twilight zone.” As “Wordplay, Episode 2” unfolds, however, Bill painstakingly communicates with his family by focusing on the people and contexts, not the words being used.

In real life, people who are aware that meaning resides “in the person” are less concerned with dictionary definitions and are more attuned to what senders mean in different contexts. If we clarify that we are using words in the same way as those with whom we communicate, we are being “person-minded.” For example, imagine how it would feel to interact with someone whose first priority is to understand what you mean by “down time.” Instead of assuming that you want to read a magazine and then take a nap, he or she would understand that cleaning might energize you more than reading and napping.

Query and Paraphrase

Curious people find it easy to be person-minded. Unlike those who are sure that they know what others mean, inquisitive individuals are more worried about learning than whether others perceive them as being intelligent. Many college professors and business managers agree with Haney’s (1992) conclusion that asking thoughtful questions will earn the respect of superiors because questions show “interest and a sense of responsibility” (p. 290).

Similarly, if we paraphrase—using our words to summarize a speaker’s message and to clarify the accuracy of our interpretations—we are being person-minded. If you have tried to accurately summarize what another person’s directions, you know the time-consuming nature of this process. However, when you avoid getting lost because you have paraphrased well, ultimately, you might save time and build supportive communication climates.

Be Approachable

In addition to remembering to query and paraphrase, we must do all we can to be receptive to others’ ideas and behaviors. Haney (1992) recommended asking the following question each day: “Am I genuinely receptive to feedback, and do I continually communicate my receptivity to others?” (p. 293). This means paying close attention to messages that we might be unintentionally sending, both verbally and nonverbally. Researchers note the importance of nonverbal cues for mutual understanding: we need culturally appropriate occulesics (use of eyes), proxemics (use of personal space), and haptics (use of touch), in addition to effective vocalics (use of voice) and kinesics (use of body) for the various settings in which we communicate (Morreale et al., 2007).

Perhaps by identifying what makes other people approachable in various contexts, we can incorporate such verbal and nonverbal skills when interacting with others. Moreover, we could solicit feedback from those we trust. If someone suggests that lack of eye contact makes us seem “unapproachable,” we could purposefully monitor our connections with others, especially if we are living and working in the United States, where providing good eye contact is a sign of caring and respect.

Be Sensitive to Contexts

Haney (1992) proposed that the “surrounding words (verbal context) and the surrounding circumstance (situational context)” (p. 295) provide the clues needed to prevent bypassing. We know this to be true in educational contexts when we discover the meaning of new concepts by noting how they are used in a sentence.

Many of us like the challenge of a good mystery, so we might enjoy being a “language detective,” discovering the meaning in the person and the context. Postman (1976) coined the phrase “stupid talk” to refer to language used by those who ignore contextual cues; it is “talk that does not know what environment it is in” (p. 20). He argued that effective communication includes people and their purposes, in addition to “general rules of the discourse by which such purposes are usually achieved . . . [and that] particular talk actually being used in the situation” (Postman, p. 8). We need to explore whether our language is both appropriate and effective for the context.

Correctives for BypassingBe person-minded, not wordminded — Disagree with the dictionary and agree with the person’s background.

Be sensitive to contexts — Be mindful of the situation in which the word was used.

SUMMARY

In communicating with others, we often focus on the message instead of the person with whom we are interacting. We focus on words because we believe meaning is in the word. We rely on dictionaries and past experiences to find meaning, instead of being curious about the contexts in which we find ourselves. Moreover, we forget that most of our words have multiple meanings. We are unaware that people might use euphemisms and jargon to mislead.

To implement the premise that “a map is not the ‘territory,’ so there is no not territory,” we must act as if we know that meaning is in the person. We need to be sensitive to contexts in which a person is using a word, carefully paraphrasing answers to clarifying questions. Throughout this text we have learned that additional inquiry can lead to more effective message construction because we cannot possibly know everything about anything and because language is self-reflexive. Even though paraphrasing might be time-consuming at the outset, it builds trust in a relationship, which might save valuable time in the long run. Perhaps we might learn something new and become more approachable in the process.

Irving J. Lee from “Talking Sense” on Bypassing

The basic question is not, “What did a person say?” The question is, “Does what a person says fit the life facts.”

Verbal Awareness

from Chapter 2 of Awareness and Action

Korzybski (2000) argued for a “complete denial of ‘identity,’” an elimination of identification, to help us match the structure of our language to the nonverbal world it represents (p. 10). In other words, we need to challenge our perceptions because, as we learned earlier, what we describe is not what we sense, and what we sense is not what happened. Korzybski was concerned with humans confusing these levels of abstraction: “When humans who are engaged in abstracting identify (confuse) orders of abstracting they are “identifying” . . . [and] identification [becomes] the primary mechanism of misevaluation” (as cited in Pula, 2000, p. 23). Similarly, Chisholm (1945) explained what happens when we confuse levels of abstraction:

What I say about it is what it is

My statement = truth about subject of the statement

WORDS=TRUTH

What I say about anything = what it is (p. 3)

Unfortunately, our nervous systems may prevent us from knowing what “it” is for sure but our language allows us to operate as if words, or labels, represent reality. The need for structural changes in our language is apparent in the following example:

If it is what I say it is, it is perfectly safe for me to guide myself entirely in terms of my verbal formulation. I don’t have to look out at the world again at all because I have in me some words which are equivalent to it.

But what is in the cans in a grocery store is more important than the labels wound around them: if a can containing spinach is by mistake labeled pumpkin, no amount of looking at the label will make the pie of the contents palatable pie for anyone but Popeye. Yet identification behavior equates label and thing labeled, and assumes ican safely guide my reactions by the label. (Chisholm, 1945, p. 3)

Even if we laugh at this fuzzy logic, how many times do we react to labels on a daily basis? Labeling some people as “kind” and others as “rude,” we move through our interactions without an awareness of how people change. This is why some general semanticists advocate for elimination of the verb “to be,” proposing that we write in “E-prime,” avoiding the “is” of identity (Bourland, 1989). Murphy (1992) explained that the verb “is” joins “nouns at different levels of abstraction [Mary is a woman]” and joins “a noun to an adjective that neither completely nor permanently qualifies it [Mary is cold]” (p. 20).

Write a paragraph about your best friend and then check it for forms of the verb “to be.” See how many times you use the “is of identity” to link nouns as if they were identical, on the same level of abstraction (e.g., my friend is a physician). Similarly, how often did you find the “is of prediction,” linking nouns with adjectives as if personality characteristics remain constant (e.g., she is amazing)? Just because I am “outgoing” today does not mean that I will act that way in a few days, let alone in a few years.

Murphy (1992) continued with more problems with the verb “to be”:

. . . the verb makes possible the widespread use of the passive voice, conditions us to accept detours around crucial issues of causality (“Mistakes were made”). It makes possible the raising of unanswerable, because hopelessly formulated, questions (“What is truth?”). It makes possible, too, the construction of a variety of phrases (“As is well known . . .”) that casually sweep reasoning under a rug. One also finds the verb to be pressed into service on behalf of stereotypical labeling (“Scotsmen are stingy”) and overbroad existential generalization (“I am just no good”). These issues aside, semanticists say, the verb to be, broadly “Yet identification behavior equates label and thing labeled, and assumes ican safely guide my reactions by the label.” speaking , imputes an Aristotelian neatness, rigidity, and permanence to the world around us and to the relationships among all things in it—conditions that rarely have a basis in dynamic reality. (p. 20)

Such examples demonstrate the need to scrutinize the verb “to be” in our daily thinking, writing, and speaking.

Consequently, we can fully appreciate the need for verbal and nonverbal awareness in light of the
abstraction process. The following chapters of this text help us to put this general semantics methodology into daily practice. Ultimately, we want to avoid being trapped at higher levels of abstraction and pursuing unattainable goals, the result of which is well described by Wendell Johnson (1946):

In spite of all the prizes he captures, “success” eludes him! It eludes him for the remarkably obvious, but persistently unnoticed, reason that it is merely a verbal mirage. What he seeks to escape is an absolute failure, what he anxiously pursues is an absolute success—and they do not exist outside his aching head. What he does in fact achieve is a series of relative successes; and these are all that he, these are all that anyone, can ever achieve. But in the midst of relative abundance, absolutistic idealists suffer the agonies of famine. (pp. 5–6)

Twilight Zone episode, “Word Play”

In order to understand the fallacy that words have meanings, that words are just meaningless variables until someone fixes the variable and chooses to interpret the words in a particular way, watch the following Twilight Zone episode.

Why do people argue over silly questions? They think they are disputing facts, but they are disagreeing about what name they will give to those facts.

Multiple Meanings for “FAST” and “CALL”

Enjoy the following excerpt from William Haney’s 6th edition of Communication and Interpersonal Relations: Texts and Cases (1992, p. 274):

Miscommunication Worksheets

The following worksheets (one completed, one blank) can be used to help recognize patterns of miscommunication, including Allness and Bypassing.

In Column 1, explain with detailed dialogue “who” said “what.”

In Column 2, use the definitions for each contributing factor and then apply it specifically to the dialogue included.

In Column 3, use definitions for each corrective and then apply the correctives to your behavior (it is tempting to want the other person to use the correctives, but they don’t know the correctives like you do!)

Completed Worksheet for Bypassing

Blank Miscommunication Worksheet

Bypassing – Sample Case Analysis

Instructions

We can use hypothetical cases to study characters who are unaware of their bypassing behaviors. The cases that follow were developed by students who were familiar with the contributing factors of bypassing, and they created characters with such faulty language habits.

After reading the Allness Sample Case below,Phonathon, explore how Jenny and Professor Burch were exhibiting bypassing behaviors. You can find the contributing factors defined and explained in the second column of Table 3.1 below. Similarly, you can see how each character can use a bypassing corrective.

Bypassing Sample Case: Soon

Jenny worked hard. She studied weeks before a test to make sure that she was prepared. She stuck to a strict schedule to keep her assignments and classes in order; consequently, she liked to know how she was doing in a course, to see which class needed more time. Professor Burch, her literature instructor, changed his syllabus, switched due dates, and rarely returned assignments. These actions meant trouble for Jenny.

Professor Burch assigned long papers in all his classes; therefore, it often took him several days to return papers. This literature class was one of four courses that he taught during a semester. He had assigned a 10-page paper about Shakespeare in the class that Jenny was taking.

Jenny had stayed up for several nights to complete her work, so she was relieved to be turning in the paper during Tuesday’s class. Turning to Steve, she asked, “Where is your paper?”

“He said he’d accept them by the end of the business day, so I’ll finish mine and then run it to him later,” Steve said. “Professor Burch usually does not stick to due dates unless he specifically says that he will.”

Professor Burch told the class members that he would return their papers soon. Because he said that he would turn the papers back to them soon, Jenny was confident that she would receive her paper the following week. She waited patiently but soon realized that the professor was taking much longer than she anticipated.

[2 weeks later]

Full of nervous energy, Jenny walked into class and headed straight for the professor’s desk. Trying to sound as calm as possible, Jenny asked, “Professor, we still have not received our papers about Shakespeare. When are we going to get the papers back?”

Professor Burch replied, “I am just finishing up the last few grades, so you will be getting them back soon.”

Jenny found a seat next to Steve and grumbled, “I cannot believe that he has not given our papers back.”

Steve calmly replied, “I really do not think it is a big deal. He said that he will give them back soon, so I am sure that we will get them later this week.”

Later that class period, Professor Burch assigned another paper that was longer and worth more points. Not knowing what her grade was for the previous paper, Jenny was unsure how to begin the current one. She would have to go to Professor Burch’s office hours tomorrow. Perhaps he might even have her other paper graded by then.

Character Analysis

A character analysis helps you identify, define, and explain contributing factors for each character. It can be used to define and explain how to demonstrate correctives. The following table illustrates how you might analyze the behaviors of Jenny and Professor Burch in terms ofcontributing factorsandcorrectives.

Table 3.1

Character

Contributing Factor (define, explain)

Corrective (demonstrate, define, explain)

Jenny

Definition: Word have meanings — The false assumption that meaning is in words, not people.Explanation: Jenny assumes that she and Professor Burch have the same meaning of the word soon.

Definition: query and paraphrase — Summarize a speaker and then ask clarifying questions.Explanation: Jenny realizes that the meaning of soon depends on the person, so she asks Professor Burch to estimate the date he hopes to return papers.

Professor Burch

Definition: Words have mono-usage—The false assumption that a word has only one meaning.Explanation: Professor Burch is unaware that students have different meanings for soon.

Definition: Be person-minded, not word-minded —Disagree with the dictionary and agree with the person’s background.Explanation: Professor Burch recognizes that Jenny is a student who diligently completes assignments, so he gives her a specific date for when he will be done with the grades.

Bypassing – 3 Case Studies

Carefully read these three cases. Pay particular attention to the characters whose names are in bold. Following the third case is a list of six characters from the cases. From this list, click on the link for ONE character who will serve as the basis for your next assignment – to recognize contributing factors and offer corrective actions for that character’s bypassing behavior.

Bypassing Case 3.1: Hard Work

Samantha, a junior volleyball player, headed to her weekly meeting with the head coach. Sometimes, these meetings went well; other times, she was scared of what might happen. This coach’s behaviors differed from what Samantha usually expected of a head coach, the coach only interacted with players at individual meetings. Samantha assumed that this week’s meetings would focus on the team’s performance at the end of the season.

“Good morning, Samantha. How do you feel about your performance in both games and practices this year?” the head coach asked.

“I think that I worked hard during practice, but I rarely had the opportunity to play in the games.”

“I thought that the amount of time you played during games matched your performances during practice,” answered the coach. “Do you think that you are going to play next season?”

“I have a heavy course load, and I may need to look for a job or an internship. More important, I believe that I should be rewarded with more playing time for all my hard work.”

“Well, your hard work is appreciated,” explained the coach. “Regardless of whether you play, I believe that the team could use a good teammate and hard worker like you. You really show the rest of the team how to be a good sport and have a good attitude. We would like to have you on the team, but either way, I wish you luck next year.”

Meanwhile, Kendra, also a junior volleyball player, met with the assistant coach. Kendra did not care about these evaluation meetings. Sometimes, she even skipped them simply because she knew that neither coach would punish her. Because she was the best player on the team, she knew it did not matter whether she tried at practice, as the coaches always played her and she started every game.

The assistant coach inquired, “Kendra, how would you rate your effort in both games and practices?”

“Well, practices never seem important because I start every game. You have my statistics, so you know how hard I work during games.”

“Do you think you will play next year?” asked the assistant coach.

“Of course I’m going to play. I am not sure that the team could win without me. I work the hardest out there,” claimed Kendra.

“Well, those are all the questions I have for you. Keep your grades up and we will see you next season,” the assistant coach concluded. She sighed deeply as she headed to the next round of player meetings. Someday when she was a head coach, she would definitely address players with bad attitudes.

In the hallway, Samantha and Kendra crossed paths outside of the coaches’ offices and discussed their individual meetings. Samantha rarely enjoyed these interactions, but she decided to ask Kendra about meeting with the assistant coach.

“They want me to play next year. Those silly meetings never mean anything to me. I told the assistant coach that practice was not important and she did not even get mad.”

“Coach told me they appreciate my hard work at practice. See you next season,” Samantha finished, hoping she would not cross paths with Kendra anytime soon.

Bypassing Case 3.2: Volume

Late one weeknight, Trey, a sophomore political science major, had music playing in his dorm room. The walls were thin, so the music bothered his neighbors. The bass sound started to shake the floor, which meant that the ceiling in the room below was vibrating. Trey’s resident assistant, a senior named Calvin, was studying for an important 400-level chemistry exam that he needed to complete successfully to get into graduate school. Another resident, Kyle, had an 8:00 am class the next day and wanted to get some sleep.

Kyle went to Calvin’s room and asked, “Can you have Trey turn his music down? I’m trying to sleep and I have class in the morning.”

Calvin agreed to talk to Trey. Because the loud music was happening during “quiet” hours, Calvin ran upstairs and asked Trey to turn his music down to respect the other residents.

“This is your only warning for the night, Trey. There are other people on this floor besides you,” Calvin reminded Trey. Trey begrudgingly agreed to turn down the music.

On his way back to his room to study, Calvin told Kyle that Trey agreed to turn the music down. Kyle thanked Calvin and went back to bed.

After a couple of minutes, Calvin realized that he could still hear the bass from Trey’s music. He trudged back to Trey’s room and firmly stated, “I thought I asked you to turn that music down. Now, I am going to have to write you up.”

“I did turn it down a notch,” Trey protested.

Calvin looked at the volume dial on Trey’s speakers. Perhaps Trey had turned down the volume since the previous visit, but it was not enough.

“Considering that your bass still is shaking the floor, you need to turn it way down. I really do not want to write you up. At this hour, you should be the only one who can hear your music,” Calvin concluded.

Trey sighed after Calvin left the room. As far as Trey was concerned, the volume was turned down. He slammed his headphones over his ears. Within minutes, he was swaying to the music, forgetting the whole incident and focusing on political science theory.

Bypassing Case 3.3: Light Mayo

On Sunday afternoon, Eliza, a 20-year-old university student, clocked in for her shift at a local restaurant.

Eliza’s manager, Olivia, approached Eliza when she arrived and asked, “Eliza, can you do inventory later tonight?”

Eliza nodded in agreement and started her normal shift as a waitress. She took orders, delivered food, refilled drinks, and bused tables. Eliza knew Olivia expected assigned tasks, such as inventory, to be done before a shift was over. Because it was a Sunday night, Eliza knew that there would be a lot of down time towards the end of her shift.

After the dinner crowd dwindled, Eliza started to head to the backroom to start inventory. Just then, Todd, a regular customer, walked in, and asked, “Hello, Eliza, may I have a chicken sandwich with light mayo?”

“Sure, chicken with light mayo?” She repeated to confirm Todd’s order as she typed it into the computer. Ten minutes later, Eliza served Todd his sandwich and headed for the back room.

Todd took a bite of his sandwich and called for Eliza to come back. “Eliza, I said light mayo, right?”

“Yes, a chicken sandwich with light mayo,” she replied.

“I wanted a chicken sandwich with just a little bit of mayo. I cannot eat a sandwich with all of this mayo,” Todd complained as he pushed the plate across the table.

“I am so sorry. I thought you wanted the brand of light mayonnaise that we use. I will have the cook make you another one.” She headed back to the kitchen to correct the mistake.

“I sure wish that this one would have been right. I have so much work to finish tonight,” Todd muttered. “Have the cook put it in a box for me to take home.” Todd pulled out his phone to check for e-mails and waited.

When Eliza returned with Todd’s sandwich, he snatched it from her and left the restaurant without tipping. Upset about the mistake, Eliza started scrubbing tables. Just then, Cindy, Eliza’s overdramatic friend, rushed into the restaurant. Eliza could only imagine what had happened now. Cindy always had gossip to share, especially when Eliza was at work.

“We need to talk!” Cindy said urgently.

“Can it wait until later? I am work, remember?” Eliza asked.

“But there is no one in here! What do you have to do?” Cindy questioned.

As Cindy was begging her friend to listen, Olivia came from the back of the restaurant and reminded, Eliza, “Make sure you get to that inventory soon.”

“See, Cindy, I have do work to do,” Eliza argued.

“But Olivia said to do that soon, not right now,” Cindy protested. Cindy then took a seat at the nearest booth, rambling on about her crisis “du jour,” unaware that Eliza had stopped listening and started taking inventory.

Assignment

After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Bypassing Sample Case Analysis, now it’s your turn to analyze a character.

Six of the characters from the three Bypassing cases are listed below. Select just one of them by clicking on the name. You will then be taken to a discussion forum for that character. Re-read the case, then post your character analysis as a Reply. Your analysis should include:

a contributing factor (words have mono-usage, words have meaning) to the character’s bypassing behavior;

an explanation as to how the character exhibited the contributing factor;

a corrective (be person-minded, not word-minded: query & paraphrase: be approachable; be sensitive to context ) specific to that character;

an explanation regarding how the character could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in the case.

Now select one character and proceed to the discussion for that character:

Case 3.1 (Hard Work): Samantha

Case 3.1 (Hard Work): Coach

Case 3.2 (Volume): Trey

Case 3.2 (Volume): Calvin

Case 3.3 (Light Mayo): Eliza

Case 3.3 (Light Mayo): Todd

NOTE: ON THIS PAGE, DO NOT FOLLOW THE NEXT BUTTON. CLICK ON ONE OF THE SIX CHARACTER LINKS.

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS – COACH

After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Bypassing Sample Case Analysis, now it’s your turn to analyze a character. You have selected to analyze Coach.

Re-read the Hard Work case below, then post your character analysis of Coach as a Reply to this topic. Your analysis should include:

a contributing factor (words have mono-usage, words have meaning) to Coach’s bypassing behavior

an explanation regarding how Coach could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in the case.

The case is copied below for reference. Remember that you will not see others’ responses until you post yours.

Samantha, a junior volleyball player, headed to her weekly meeting with the head Coach. Sometimes, these meetings went well; other times, she was scared of what might happen. This coach’s behaviors differed from what Samantha usually expected of a head coach, the coach only interacted with players at individual meetings. Samantha assumed that this week’s meetings would focus on the team’s performance at the end of the season.

“Good morning, Samantha. How do you feel about your performance in both games and practices this year?” the head coach asked.

“I think that I worked hard during practice, but I rarely had the opportunity to play in the games.”

“I thought that the amount of time you played during games matched your performances during practice,” answered the coach. “Do you think that you are going to play next season?”

“I have a heavy course load, and I may need to look for a job or an internship. More important, I believe that I should be rewarded with more playing time for all my hard work.”

“Well, your hard work is appreciated,” explained the coach. “Regardless of whether you play, I believe that the team could use a good teammate and hard worker like you. You really show the rest of the team how to be a good sport and have a good attitude. We would like to have you on the team, but either way, I wish you luck next year.”

Meanwhile, Kendra, also a junior volleyball player, met with the assistant coach. Kendra did not care about these evaluation meetings. Sometimes, she even skipped them simply because she knew that neither coach would punish her. Because she was the best player on the team, she knew it did not matter whether she tried at practice, as the coaches always played her and she started every game.

The assistant coach inquired, “Kendra, how would you rate your effort in both games and practices?”

“Well, practices never seem important because I start every game. You have my statistics, so you know how hard I work during games.”

“Do you think you will play next year?” asked the assistant coach.

“Of course I’m going to play. I am not sure that the team could win without me. I work the hardest out there,” claimed Kendra.

“Well, those are all the questions I have for you. Keep your grades up and we will see you next season,” the assistant coach concluded. She sighed deeply as she headed to the next round of player meetings. Someday when she was a head coach, she would definitely address players with bad attitudes.

In the hallway, Samantha and Kendra crossed paths outside of the coaches’ offices and discussed their individual meetings. Samantha rarely enjoyed these interactions, but she decided to ask Kendra about meeting with the assistant coach.

“They want me to play next year. Those silly meetings never mean anything to me. I told the assistant coach that practice was not important and she did not even get mad.”

“Coach told me they appreciate my hard work at practice. See you next season,” Samantha finished, hoping she would not cross paths with Kendra anytime soon.

Bypassing Review and Reflection

Write down any thoughts or comments you want to document in your Personal Journal.

Bypassing Discussion

Now that you’ve had some experience studying the contributing factors and correctives for the GS behavior known as bypassing, please share your learning experiences with others in the course by discussing these two questions by replying to this topic.

Explain how you taught bypassing to a friend or relative.

What did you learn about bypassing from this experience?

Remember, you won’t be able to see others’ responses until you’ve posted yours.

After reviewing others’ responses, provide at least one insightful response to a classmate’s post by building on his/her ideas and encouraging further exploration. Avoid simple statements of agreement or disagreement, support or criticsim.

Question 1 5 pts

There are times when doublespeak can be ethically defensible.

There are times when doublespeak can be ethically defensible.
True
False

Flag this Question
Question 2 5 pts

The word is not the object it represents.

The word is not the object it represents.
True
False

Flag this Question
Question 3 5 pts

Cultural context, according to Hofstede, involves just 2 dimensions: power difference and tolerance of ambiguity.

Cultural context, according to Hofstede, involves just 2 dimensions: power difference and tolerance of ambiguity.
True
False

Flag this Question
Question 4 5 pts

When we say “words have mono-usage,” we are operating on the assumption that a word has only one meaning.

When we say “words have mono-usage,” we are operating on the assumption that a word has only one meaning.
True
False

Flag this Question
Question 5 5 pts

Bypassing resonates with which General Semantics premise?

Bypassing resonates with which General Semantics premise?
None of these.
The map is not the territory and there is no “not” territory.
Maps refer to parts of the territory becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of abstraction.
A map covers not all the territory, so any map is only part of the territory.

Flag this Question
Question 6 5 pts

When you are trying to discover what a word means to another person, which of the suggestions below is NOT a corrective for bypassing?

When you are trying to discover what a word means to another person, which of the suggestions below is NOT a corrective for bypassing?
Query and paraphrase
Be person-minded, not word-minded
Finding definitions in the dictionary
Be sensitive to contexts

Flag this Question
Question 7 20 pts

Match the following terms to their descriptions.

Match the following terms to their descriptions.
Inoffensive or positive word/phrase used to avoid harsh, unpleasant, or distateful reality
A matter of piling on words or overwhelming the audience with words.
Specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group.
Designed to make ordinary seem extraordinary.

This course was developed and presented on the Canvas Network by Steve Stockdale, Mary Lahman, and Greg Thompson. It is reproduced here under terms of the Creative Commons Share Alike License as published on Canvas Network from 13 January – 24 February 2014.

Module Map

In Module 1 we addressed the question, “What is General Semantics?” During the next two weeks, we will focus on applying what we learned about GS to produce more effective language behaviors.

Mary will lead this module based on excerpts from her PDF textbook, Awareness and Action. These excerpts can be read within the Canvas pages so it’s not necessary to download the PDF textbook. Because minor changes have been made to accommodate the online format and module numbering, we prefer and recommend you read the pages from within Canvas to complete the assignments. But you are welcome to download and read the complete Awareness and Action textbook.

Introduction

As a communication studies professor who is also a parent, I often advise my children, “Change your perception and you change your world.” As a researcher with interests in general semantics and appreciative inquiry—a method for organizational change that involves stakeholders focusing on what is going well—I recently updated my advice to include, “Words create worlds so choose wisely” (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2010, p. 52). Regardless of the contexts in which we find ourselves, we might communicate more effectively if we explore our daily language behavior. A general semantics methodology provides the opportunity to do so.

I first learned about general semantics in a 1982 Language and Thought class taught by Paul Keller at Manchester. Professor Keller studied general semantics with Irving Lee at Northwestern University. Since 1996, I have taught a number of courses using books by William Haney (1992), Susan and Bruce Kodish (2001), and Steve Stockdale (2009a). I credit these authors for the various sections of Awareness and Action:

Stockdale (2009a) outlined a “structured system of formulations” to explain general semantics, and I address two of its premises, “scientific orientation” and “time-binding,” in Chapter 1, leaving “abstraction,” “nonverbal awareness,” and “verbal awareness” for Chapter 2.

Kodish and Kodish (2001) operationalized “nonverbal awareness” with student-friendly exercises that I include in Chapter 2.

Haney (1992) explained “contributing factors” and “correctives” for patterns of miscommunication that occur when we are not aware of the abstraction process. I introduce several of these patterns in the following four chapters: Allness, Inference—Observation Confusion, Bypassing, and Differentiation Failures. For each pattern, I include case studies developed by former students.

In short, Awareness and Action shows how general semantics can be used as a systematic inquiry into language behavior, followed by an application of these formulations. I use case studies to engage readers in all four phases of Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle:

When discussing the abstractions of characters in the cases, we work with accommodative knowledge: the “transformation of the intuitive aspects of experience through active experimentation.”

When applying the contributing factors needed to address characters’ faulty language behaviors, we develop divergentknowledge: the “transformation of the intuitive aspects of the experience through reflection.”

When working together to evaluate how one corrective is better than another for each character in a case, we acquire assimilative knowledge by “deciding on the best solution.”

When role playing a case with appropriate correctives for each character to address faulty language behaviors, we create convergentknowledge by presenting “an implementation plan” (as cited in Kreber, 2001, p. 224).

General semantics is not just a theory but a practical approach to delay the way that humans automatically respond: it is something we must do. The case studies approach ensures that we practice applying the formulations, taking action with our newfound awareness of faulty language behavior.

Module Learning Objectives

After successfully completing this module, students will be able to:

Identify the GS premise that explains allness.

Explain the contributing factors to allness.

Use the structural differential to explain why we neglect to distinguish between a group and individuals within the group.

Identify the correctives needed to combat allness.

Explain why we are closed to new and different ideas as we grow older.

Module Activities

This week we will learn how the GS principle of allness applies to our language behaviors. You will:

Read the excerpt from Chapter 3: Allness of Awareness and Action.

Analyze character behaviors from a sample Case Study (Case 3.1).

Participate in a Discussion related to allness.

Choose one other Case Study for further analysis (from Cases 3.2, 3.3, or 3.4).

Complete the module quiz.

ALLNESS

Discovering It is not Possible to Know Everything about Anything

Allness occurs because we forget that we are abstracting, overlooking the premise that “a map cannot cover all of its territory, so any map is only a part of the territory.” Haney (1992) advocated for an awareness of abstraction to combat allness.

Use the following questions to guide your reading of the material below (excerpted from Chapter 3 of Allness in Awareness and Action, pp. 21-25).

Compare and contrast allness and abstraction.

Why don’t we remember that others abstract different details than we do?

Use the structural differential to explain how it is possible to neglect to to distinguish between a group and individuals within the group.

Why are we closed to new and different ideas as we grow older?

In Korzybski’s view, knowledge and uncertainty belong together . . . to live with both required courage—the courage to act despite imperfect knowledge and the courage to self-reflect and self-correct when needed, i.e., with frequency. —Bruce Kodish (2011, p. 8)

DEFINITION: ALLNESS

When prompted to think of a “know-it-all,” we often envision other people and rarely see how our language may appear indisputable to others. We might agree with Haney (1992) that is it impossible to “know and say everything about something” or that what we say “includes all that is important about the subject” (p. 321), but our language choices often include words of certainty, tones of finality, and absolutes (e.g., always, never, all, and none).

Haney (1992) named this pattern of miscommunication allness, defining it as follows: The attitude of those who are unaware that they are abstracting and thus assume that what they say or know is absolute, definitive, complete, certain, all-inclusive, positive, final—and all there is (or at least all there is that is important or relevant) to say or know about the subject (p. 323).

Even though we are now aware of how “we inescapably abstract,” reducing people, places, and things to one-word descriptors, how many of us will remember to introduce family members with more than a job title? Will we distinguish colleagues from their political and religious affiliations? We easily forget that we might be “focusing-on-some-details-while-neglecting-the-rest,” thus making it easier to act as if what we know is “all that we really need to know” (Haney, 1992, p. 323).

Allness occurs because we forget the general semantics premise that “a map cannot cover all of its territory, so any map is only part of the territory.” Korzybski (2000) demonstrated this principle by asking students to tell “‘everything’ or ‘all’ about the object [an apple] in question” (p. 471). When he had collected all of the students’ responses and exhausted their patience, he would cut the apple into pieces, eventually using a magnifying glass to demonstrate that “they did not tell us ‘all’ about the apple” (p. 472). For instance, how many of us know that when cutting an apple in half around the middle, we will discover a “star” formed by the core and seeds? As the following contributing factors to allness demonstrate, even if we monitor our language choices, we often act as if what we are saying, writing, or thinking includes all that is important about a subject, person, and event at that moment. The correctives will help us to remember that our maps (words) do not account for all of the territory—that is, all that is going on in the empirical world.

You may want to refer back to the Consciousness of Abstracting-Evaluating page in Module 1 to review allness in the context of other behaviors to be aware of.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: ALLNESS

One of the contributing factors to allness is an unawareness of abstraction that results in an assumption that we have covered it all. Kodish and Kodish (2011) explained why this unawareness might happen: “The scientific ‘object’ is not the ‘object’ as you or we experience it but seems to consist of events, processes, changing relations at the level of the very small, smaller than we can view even with a microscope” (p. 60). For instance, we might remember learning about the submicroscopic proton, electrons, and quarks in a high school classroom, but we rarely remember that language is an abstraction of an event, which, itself, is an abstraction of all that is happening in this submicroscopic world. To communicate more effectively with others, we must be conscious of how we abstract to delay acting on limited details gathered by our nervous systems.

We also abstract different details than others do, leading us to assume that what we know is what others know. How many of us have been guilty of arguing a point (e.g., who is to blame for a missing item) only to find out later that we did not know important details? Haney (1992) contended that the consequence of engaging in such behavior is “the rigid drawing of lines and unintelligent, destructive conflict” (p. 325). Perhaps we need to listen for understanding first. Covey (2004) argued for “seeking first to understand, then to be understood when we listen with the intent to understand others” (p. 153). Listening to understand means identifying “how” we abstracted different details, not who is right and who is to blame.

Another contributing factor of allness occurs when we act on the assumption that “our experience with one or a few members holds for all” (Haney, 1992, p. 327). We evaluatea group based on limited interactions with individuals from that group. That assumption has particularly dangerous consequences when we assign stereotypes to people solely on the basis of the political party or religious community with which they associate. We often forget to distinguish between the group and the individuals within that group. How many of your friends and family members who are registered Republicans or Democrats identify with all of the policies advocated by Republican or Democratic candidates?

Haney (1992) suggested that as we age, we may become “closed to the new or different” (p. 329). Even though we often accuse parents and grandparents of being closed-minded, this indifference is not just a problem for older generations. I often ask students to compare and contrast the insatiable curiosity of a kindergartner with the quiet classroom demeanor of a college student. Students suggest that they have often censored curiosity because of concern for peer and instructor evaluations. This high self-monitoring might keep them from learning new ideas.

Furthermore, Haney (1992) explained why people might be more afraid of change as they age:

As we grow older, more and more of what we learn is actually relearning. To learn something new or especially something different may require we relinquish something we already hold—that we discard certain accepted assumptions and cherished beliefs. This can be an unpleasant, uncomfortable experience. But some people find it a distinctly threatening state of affairs. And when we are threatened we often resort to some defense mechanism or another. Allness can be particularly effective bastion at such times. (p.330)

This rationale reminds us that we can delay “automatic” evaluation when encountering non-life-threatening situations. We need courage to do so.

CORRECTIVES: ALLNESS

Because we know it is impossible not to abstract, Haney (1992) argued that the “antidote for allness is not the avoidance but the awareness of abstracting” (p. 335). What follows are his suggestions for how to become more fully aware of the abstraction process.

1. Develop a Genuine Humility

When we remember that abstraction inhibits our ability to cover everything, we find it easier to be humble. Haney (1992) defined humility as “a deep conviction that you can never know or say everything about anything” (p. 335). I like the humor he provided to help us remember these limits:

Bailiff: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Witness: Look, if I knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—I would be God! (p. 335)

When I first learned about general semantics, Professor Keller suggested that we should expect to be proven wrong; as Haney (1992) cited Disraeli, “To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great first step toward knowledge” (p. 335). Perhaps when we fully understand how little we really do know, we will be more curious and ask more clarifying questions.

2. Add (or at Least Silently Acknowledging) Etcetera

Korzybski (2000) named “etc.” as one of five extensional devices to achieve an extensional orientation. Haney (1992) summarized the use of etc. as follows: “When you see a period in my writing or hear one in my talking, please translate it as etcetera. It will remind both of us that I have not covered everything” (p. 337). Consequently, adding etc. to our thinking processes reminds us to be aware of abstraction. As rebuttals race through our minds, perhaps we can pause long enough to remember that there is more we might not know—the etcetera still waiting to be discovered.

Haney (1992) warned that, when talking, we should not “make a fetish of conspicuously ‘etcetering’ every statement” (p. 337), as doing so may lead others to evaluate us as lacking understanding or having adequate support for our conclusions. Adding etc. to our communication skill set is best tolerated, and perhaps most useful, when we apply it first to our thoughts. For example, we can think to ourselves, “There is more here than meets the eye,” using the familiar idiom to remind us to silently acknowledge the etcetera.

3. Ask Yourself, “Do I have an All-wall?”

In addition to realizing that abstraction inhibits our ability to cover everything, Haney (1992) proposed exploring how often we are closed to new and different ideas. For example, when we have a chance to hear a new perspective, do we listen carefully and then paraphrase what we hear? Many of us rarely paraphrase because we have been preparing rebuttals instead of listening. Morreale, Spitzberg, and Barge (2007) outlined various opportunities to withhold judgment during the three stages of the listening process:

Receiving: postpone evaluation of the message

Constructing meaning: set aside bias and prejudice

Responding: clarify meaning by asking questions. (p. 149)

Monitoring how often we listen to new and differing viewpoints could help us to decide whether we have an “all-wall.” Similarly, asking a close friend and family member about how well we listen might provide invaluable insight. Who knows how much we will learn when we remember to postpone evaluation as we receive their messages and set aside bias when constructing meaning about our interactions.

SUMMARY

Allness occurs because we forget that we are abstracting, overlooking the premise that “a map cannot cover all of its territory, so any map is only part of the territory.” Because we are unaware that we abstract, we do not remember that others abstract different details than we do. Furthermore, we neglect to distinguish between a group and the individuals within the group, and we often are closed to new and different ideas as we grow older.

Haney (1992) advocated for an awareness of abstraction to combat allness. If we develop a genuine humility that we cannot possibly know everything about anything, we will silently add etc. to our thinking and avoid acting as if we have an all-wall. Furthermore, when we delay evaluations of messages as we listen to others and ask others questions to clarify meaning, we are using specific behaviors that demonstrate an understanding of the general semantics premise that “a map cannot cover all its territory, so any map is only part of the territory.”

REFLECTION AND ACTION

Which correctives for allness do you personally find most meaningful and relevant?

2. Throughout the week (and the duration of the course):

Discuss the topic of allness with a friend or family member. Observe the course of the conversation in terms of their questions and reactions, as well as your explanations, examples, etc.

Consciously apply at least one of the allness correctives during your regular day-to-day activities.

3. Share your insights and experiences with others in the course by participating in the Allness Review discussion.

Corey Anton’s Corollaries

Korzybski (2000) proposed a map–territory analogy to encourage daily exploration of verbal “maps” (words), noting that these maps do not accurately describe what is happening in the “territory” (empirical world): “A map is not the territory it represents” (p. 58). He used a familiar relationship, maps and territories, so that we would remember when the territory (reality) changes, we need to update the map (language). More recently, Corey Anton (n.d.) proposed that we are better served with the premise, “there is no not territory” (p. 11), because the territory (reality) consists of many maps. He argued, “Once we recognize how all maps, as part of the territory, are the means by which one part selectively releases and appropriates another part at different levels of abstraction, we no longer need to postulate that ‘reality’ lies somehow ‘behind’ and/or ‘beyond’ our experiences and/or language” (Anton, p. 11–12).

In his second book, Science and Sanity, published in 1933, Korzybski (2000) proposed his formulations as a non-Aristotelian system that promoted a “complete and conscious elimination of identification” (p. xcvii). For Korzybski, a “non-Aristotelian” orientation meant illuminating the limitations of Aristotle’s “law of identity,” or the “is of identity” (Pula, 2000, p. 21–22). He argued that even though people, places and things have specific characteristics, which Aristotle labeled as identity, these characteristics are constantly changing and are incomplete representations of the empirical world.

For example, I am a professor, but if that is all you say about me then you are leaving out other important roles in my life—friend, wife, counselor, mother, church member, sister, and many more. This illustration provides evidence of Korzybski’s (2000) second premise of general semantics: “No map represents all of ‘its’ presumed territory” (p. xvii). Recognizing that each one of us plays many roles during a lifetime, we begin to understand how one or two language labels are a static representation of a dynamic reality. Anton (n.d.) updated this premise of Korzybski’s as well, “Any map is only part of the territory” (p.11).

In the introduction to the second edition of Science and Sanity, published in 1941, Korzybski further delineated general semantics as “a new extensional discipline which explains and trains us how to use our nervous systems most efficiently” (p. xxxviii). In other words, if nature is constantly changing—and we know it is when we see flowers bloom from barren ground in the spring—then people’s nervous systems detect, or abstract, only a small percentage of these changes. Korzybski (2000) created a diagram of this abstraction process, called the “structural differential” (p. 471), providing a visual reminder of how we leave out many characteristics when we sense objects and events. We leave out even more details when we use language to explain what we sense.

The structural differential visually demonstrates how we omit numerous characteristics of an event, or reality, and continue to use those inaccurate descriptions to make more inferences. This diagram of the abstraction process depicts Korzybski’s (2000) third premise of general semantics: “Maps are self-reflexive” (p. xvii). In order to account for abstraction levels confusion within, as well as between levels, Anton (n.d.) reworked Korzybski’s third premise: “maps” is the word used to refer to parts of the territory becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of abstraction (p. 11). For instance, if I state that “I am angry that I got angry,” then I am making an inference about my behavior, confusing levels of abstraction and leaving out important characteristics about what angered me today. Consequently, the ability to make maps of maps (the self-reflexive nature of maps) when the original map is inaccurate, may confuse how we interpret events and mask what we share that with others. Unfortunately, if my reasons for getting angry today include being passed over for a promotion because I am too old, then important conversations about age discrimination may not take place.

In the 1948 preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity, Korzybski stressed the need to apply general semantics formulations, arguing that “when the methods of general semantics are applied, the results are usually beneficial, whether in law, medicine, business, etc. . . . If they are not applied, but merely talked about, no results can be expected” (p. xxxi). Consequently, this course encourages action—applying language behavior correctives rooted in Anton’s (n.d.) new corollaries for general semantics premises:

The map is not the territory, and there is no not territory.

A map covers not all the territory, so any map is only part of the territory.

Maps refer to parts of the territory becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of abstraction. (p.11)

More Practice with the Structural Differential

To demonstrate how our nervous systems limit perceptions of reality, Korzybski (2000) created a visual representation of the abstraction process—the structural differential. He proposed that this diagram could be used to explain semantic reactions, noting both intellectual and emotional responses of human beings during abstraction. Moreover, the structural differential explains how we think-feel-evaluate, leaving out characteristics as we move from the event (WIGO) to object level (our senses), and even more details as we use language in the descriptive and inference levels.

Because maps are self-reflexive, we can use language to talk about language, often confusing descriptive and inference levels. Korzybski (2000) warned about this “false-to-fact ‘is’ of identity”: using an inaccurate map to make further inferences. Consequently, he advocated using of the structural differential to explain our experiences because we could involve several senses and our kinesthetic centers when we state, “this is not this,” engaging the ear, with the eye focused on the motion of the hands, indicating the big distance between WIGO and inferences.

Some people, however, seem to appreciate Stockdale’s (2009a) abstracting model (Figure 2). They find the nonverbal world easier to comprehend because of the five senses pictured and the phrase “what I sense is not what happened” (p. 29). Additionally, students appreciate the explanation of the verbal levels: “what we describe is not what we sense” and “what it means is not what we describe” (p. 29).

Structural Differential Worksheet

Use the following worksheet to analyze your abstraction process in a recent miscommunication with another person. The worksheet has key terms from Steve Stockdale’s “somebody cut me off” story, which you also read to complete the Abstracting-Evaluating discussion in Module 1.

Once you have completed the worksheet, explain your abstraction process to a friend. Remember that Korzybski proposed using the structural differential to explain abstracting would involve the whole body as one states, “this is not this,” engaging the ear, with the eye focused on the motion of the hands, indicating the big distance between the event, description, and inference levels.

More Practice with Sensory Awareness

Kodish and Kodish (2011) proposed that nonverbal (sensory) awareness exercises help people explore how structures and meaning emerge as a function of their senses.

In addition to using the structural differential to explain recent miscommunication events with others, explore using Kodish and Kodish’s (2011) “sensory awareness” exercises to become more aware of the nonverbal world. For example, they suggest the following exercise to experience a world without words:

What are you doing right now? As you [hear] these words let yourself become aware of how you are sitting or lying down or standing . . .

How can you allow yourself to feel the support of what holds you up?

How much do you need to hold yourself up?

Where do you feel unnecessary tensions?

Do you feel tension in your jaw?

In your face?

Where do you feel ease?

How clearly do you feel yourself breathing?

Many events are occurring inside and outside your skin right now. Can you allow yourself nonverbally to experience these activities? When you focus unnecessarily on labeling and explaining, you may miss something important going on in and around you. (Kodish & Kodish, p. 105–106)

The following exercises (some of which are included below) help you focus on one sense at a time:

Day 1: Touch the cloth of your clothes. Notice the sensation in your finger, your hands. Allow the sensations to travel where they will. Move to a different part of your clothes. Notice any differences in sensations.

Day 2: Listen to whatever sounds come to you right now . . . Do you find yourself labeling what you hear? Listen again and this time if you begin to label sounds just notice that you are doing it and allow yourself to come back to the sound again.

Day 3: Choose something to look at. Without words, take in what comes to your eyes. Continue looking: what else come to you?

Day 4: Consider the sounds, sights, aromas around you as structures to explore. Pick an “object” such as a stone or a pencil. Examine it closely, silently, for several minutes. Use “all” of your senses: see, hear, touch, smell, taste, move it. How well can you do this without labeling or describing? (adapted from Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 106)

After completing these exercises, answer the following two questions:

1. What “structures” emerge as a function of this sense?

2. What “meanings” do you discern?

Reflecting about “structures” leads to an awareness of abstraction: recognizing that our senses limit what we know about WIGO. Discerning “meaning” reminds us that we can delay evaluation: revising meaning (maps) with more exploration of the “territory.”

Keep your answers from each exercise, noting progress, or lack thereof, toward experiencing the nonverbal world. Many of us in the United States struggle with such exercises because we have not been taught to be silent, let alone to find value in silence. However, these exercises encourage “semantic relaxation,” making us more aware of ourselves as “map makers” (Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 104).

Korzybski (2000) believed that because both “affective, or ‘emotional,’ responses and blood pressure are neurologically closely connected, [then] it is fundamental for ‘emotional’ balance to have ‘normal’ blood pressure, and vice versa” (p. lix). Much like the relaxation techniques you might have learned in a yoga or exercise class, Korzybski worked with students to relax tensions, to be “more open to their experiences, better able to take in and evaluate information” (as cited in Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 104).

In addition to the nonverbal awareness exercises focused on our five senses, Kodish and Kodish (2011) recommended the “means whereby” to focus on the “how” (p. 108) we move through the world. I have students practice getting up and sitting down, and walking around a building, trying to focus on “how” they move. We find this nearly impossible to do, as our senses focus on the weather, others’ movements, and the terrains across which we traverse.

Ultimately, these experiential approaches help us practice what Korzybski meant by an extensional orientation: giving “priority to ‘facts’ or nonverbal happenings rather than verbal definitions and labels, and maintaining our consciousness of abstracting” (Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 98).

Nonverbal Awareness Exercises

Listen and Reflect

Answer the following in a journal or notebook after listening to and viewing the files below.

1. What “structures” emerge as a function of this sense? (Awareness of abstraction)

2. What “meanings” do you discern? (Delay evaluation)

Audio File 1

Audio File 2

Audio File 3 (with instructions on screen)

Audio-Visual File

This exercise is not just about watching “a sunset,” but it’s watching “the sun set” and becoming more aware not only of a visual scene, but a sense of how much change is possible in just 6 minutes.

All 5 Senses

Find an apple. Write down all of the characteristics of the apple. Push yourself to describe all of the characteristics you can observe. (The more you dislike the term the better according to Korzybski)

Cut into the apples and use a magnifying glass. Now write down all of the characteristics that were not previously observable.

Allness – Sample Case Analysis

Instructions

We can use hypothetical cases to study characters who are unaware of their allness behaviors. The cases that follow were developed by students who were familiar with the contributing factors of allness, and they created characters with such faulty language habits.

After reading the Allness Sample Case below, Phonathon, explore how Georgina and Chris were exhibiting allness behaviors: abstracting different details and unawareness of abstraction. You can find the contributing factors defined and explained in the second column of Table 2.1. Similarly, you can see how each character can use an allness corrective.

Allness Sample Case: Phonathon

Georgina, a senior business major, started working as a supervisor for the college phonathon team at the beginning of fall semester. After being a team member for 2 years, she looked forward to her new role. Her duties included creating mailing labels, training new callers, and ensuring that experienced callers stay on task.

On her first day at work, Georgina’s boss, Chris, told her to train callers how to properly fill out the pledge cards. Alumni received these pledge cards after agreeing to donate. Georgina’s speech included directions to “always add an ID number” and “never turn in a pledge card without a note on the back.” That night, she showed callers how to fill out a pledge card and asked them to start calling.

Alice, a new team member, worked that first Monday night. After hearing Georgina’s instructions, Alice promptly began calling. On the first pledge card, Alice felt confident that it was filled out correctly. Unfortunately, she forgot a vital section of the pledge card: the ID number. Alice continued this way for every pledge that she received that night. The next day, Chris had to locate every ID number for Alice’s pledge, and he was frustrated that he had to add this tedious task to his normal workload.

Confident that Wednesday evening would go better, Chris reminded Georgina to instruct callers about the correct way to complete pledge cards. That night, after Georgina gave her training speech, callers asked a number of questions. Phil, a second-year team member, called Georgina over to ask questions about each pledge card; other experienced callers asked a number of questions as well. Consequently, the team members did not make many calls. The following day, Chris wondered if Georgina was having difficulty explaining the pledge-card procedure when he saw how few calls had been completed.

Thursday night was the end of the calling week for the team. When Georgina asked if there were any questions, no one raised a hand. She felt that Thursday night went smoothly because callers remained on task and did not ask any questions. She did not realize, however, that the room was full of new callers who were afraid to ask questions. When Chris saw the pledge cards the next day, he was livid, as they had even more missing ID numbers than on Monday night. He needed to get to the bottom of this right away and scheduled a meeting with Georgina for later that afternoon.

Character Analysis

The following format will help you identify, define, and explain contributing factors for each character. It can be used to define and explain how to demonstrate correctives. The following table illustrates how you might analyze the behaviors of Georgina and Chris in terms of contributing factors and correctives.

Table 2.1: Character Analysis for Sample Allness Case

Character

Contributing Factor (define, explain)

Correctives (demonstrate, define, explain)

Georgina

Definition: Abstract different details — I assume that what I know is what you know.

Explanation: When Georgina uses always and never, she assumes that callers will then use IDs and include notes, like she does.Definition: Develop a genuine humility — I am aware that I omit details because of my nervous system.

Explanation: Georgina recognizes that she might leave out information, so she asks individuals to restate her directions and encourages them to ask questions.ChrisDefinition: Unawareness of abstraction—I have limited details due to my nervous system.

Explanation: Chris is unaware that he has limited details about Georgina and the callers. Many things are happening outside the detection of his nervous system (e.g., callers not listening and cards not printed clearly).Definition: Adding ecetera—I will add an “etc.” when I hear or see a “period.”

Explanation: Chris recognizes that there is much to be discovered about phonathon activities, so he brainstorms with Georgina about other factors, the ecetera that may be affecting the callers (e.g., fatigue, long calls with alumni, and why IDs are needed).

Now it is your turn to analyze a character from another allness case. Choose a character from one of the cases found on the next page: Case 2.1: Exams; Case 2.2: Student IDs; and Case 2.3: Paperless policy.

Allness Case Assignment Instructions

Carefully read these three cases. Pay particular attention to the characters whose names are in bold. Following the third case is a list of six characters from the cases. From this list, click on the link for ONE character who will serve as the basis for your next assignment – to recognize contributing factors and offer corrective actions for that character’s allness behavior.

Allness Case 2.1: Exams

Sue walked into Professor Smith’s classroom looking like she just rolled out of bed. She moped over to her seat wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. Sue, a senior English major and good student, did not have a good morning. She stayed up late finishing a paper, overslept, and nearly missed Professor Smith’s Colonial History class that morning.

Similarly, Professor Smith could not contain his foul mood. During his previous class, students whispered throughout the lecture and then asked questions about material that he just had covered. Not only did they not pay attention to his lecture but they got angry when he handed back an examination. He did not feel like dealing with difficult students today, especially when they wanted to argue about the exams that he spent hours developing and grading. If the students just paid attention, they would not get bad grades, he thought to himself.

As he returned the exams, he explained, “If you feel you have a right answer and I marked it wrong, you may explain your answer to receive partial credit.”

Sue raised her hand because even though she only missed one question, she was sure that she had the right answer. When Professor Smith called on her, she asked, “Could we discuss question 5?”

“Sure. How can I help?”

“The question is ‘What shape is the Earth?’ I answered that it is ‘flat’ and you marked it wrong.”

“That is the wrong answer.”

“To me, the question did not give enough detail, so I thought you wanted the answer from the colonist’s point of view because this is a Colonial History class.”

“I provided feedback about why you missed points. Please read those comments and come see me during office hours.”

Having already read the feedback, Sue was angry that they could not finish their discussion. She slammed her paper down and stormed out of the room.

Later that day, Sue had another class where the professor returned exams and asked if anyone had questions regarding exam scores. Sue had a question, but remembering how Professor Smith had embarrassed her the class period before, she decided not to ask it. She returned her exam and decided that she needed to go for a run immediately following class as running always helped her feel less stressed.

Allness Case 2.2: Student IDs

It was 1:00 am on a crisp fall morning. Nearly 20 students were studying in a library computer lab when Officer Jones, a new campus security officer, was finishing his late night rounds. He first approached a group of four students who were working on a project for their small group communication class; he requested that the students present their university IDs. He knew that the student handbook stated that students should have their university IDs with them at all times, so he was sure his checking for IDs would be no problem.

“I need to see each person’s ID, please” Officer Jones said calmly.

“Excuse me?” Shane asked. “I have gone to this school for 4 years, and I have never had to show my ID in a computer lab.”

“I’m sorry,” Officer Jones explained. “I’m going to need to see your ID, or I will have to escort you from the premises.”

“Let’s just listen to him,” said Jessica, a freshman, who nervously tried to convince the others to obey the request. She had heard a lot of stories about how campus security was very strict when enforcing the rules, even going so far as to escort students off campus in handcuffs.

“I don’t understand this!” exclaimed Eli, a sophomore international student. “Why do campus employees think that they have the right to take away student privileges?” Eli had a “run-in” with the registrar’s office earlier that day. They told him that it would take an extra year for him to finish his degree because he was missing several requirements.

“This policy is clearly stated in the student handbook. Please get your IDs out now,” Officer Jones said. He was tired of the students disrespecting his authority. Earlier in the week, he and the other security officers had to endure criticism from students who had been drinking at a party. Because another officer had just quit, Officer Jones had to pick up extra shifts around the campus, so he knew that his reputation was growing as the “new guy.”

“I live off campus, so I don’t have my ID. I have not had a reason to carry it,” Molly, a junior student, explained. “It’s really late and we are just trying to finish our project. Can’t you let it go this one time?”

“I am afraid not,” Officer Jones stated. He was tired of students disobeying the rules, so he sounded annoyed. “Those of you who cannot show me your ID need to exit the library now. If you would read the student handbook, this would not be such an ordeal.”

“Let’s all leave,” Jessica stammered. “I will finish the project from my room and e-mail it you.”

Shane rolled his eyes and muttered, “As a senior, I need to be in the library late to finish my senior projects. This seems unfair because we are not bothering anyone.”

“I’ll remember my ID the next time,” Molly apologized as the three of them left the computer lab.

Officer Jones watched as the students exited the lab, and scanned the room for a friendly face to begin the next ID check.

Allness Case 2.3: Paperless Policy

After surviving two difficult lectures, Amber made a beeline to the campus store where students retrieved packages because she had a package waiting for her. As a college junior, she stills gets excited when there is a package waiting because it means that somebody cares. She walked up to the counter and smiled as she requested her package.

Agatha, an experienced employee, explained, “Did you read the e-mail we just sent? You cannot pick up your package until 11:00 am.”

“But I have class at 11:00, and its 10:50, so may I have the package a little early? We used to get packages whenever the campus store was open, so why did that that policy have to change?”

Agatha tried again, “You should have received an e-mail telling you this. Policies change.”

Beth, a new supervisor, overheard the conversation and intervened, “What seems to be the problem here?”

“I cannot get my package and I have class in 10 minutes!” exclaimed Amber.

“I told her the same thing that I tell all students: no one claims packages until 11:00,” Agatha emphasized, aggravated by college students who do not read e-mail.

Beth sensed the frustration and explained, “I created this paperless policy. Do you know how long it took us to create all those yellow slips of paper? Now we send you an e-mail in the morning and you retrieve your package at lunch time.”

Amber, clearly taken aback by how much trouble a mere package was causing, sadly thought to herself how much she will miss receiving the golden slips of paper in the mail, which reminded her of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie. On a more practical note, she wished that the policy would not have to change because some students did not have time for lunch. Unfortunately, she did not have time to discuss this matter any further today or she would be late to class.

Analysis Assignment

After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Allness Sample Case Analysis, now it’s your turn to analyze a character.

Six of the characters from the three Allness cases are listed below. Select one of them by clicking on the name. You will then be taken to a discussion forum for that character. Then post your character analysis as a Reply. Your analysis should include:

a contributing factor to the character’s allness behavior;

an explanation as to how the character exhibited the contributing factor;

a corrective action specific to that character;

an explanation regarding how the character could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in the case.

Now select a character and proceed to the discussion for that character:

NOTE: ON THIS PAGE, DO NOT FOLLOW THE NEXT BUTTON. CLICK ON ONE OF THE SIX CHARACTER LINKS.

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS – SUE

After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Allness Sample Case Analysis, now it’s your turn to analyze a character. You have selected to analyze Sue.

Re-read the Exams case below, then post your character analysis of Sue as a Reply to this topic. Your analysis should include:

a contributing factor to Sue’s allness behavior;

an explanation as to how Sue exhibited the contributing factor;

a corrective specific to Sue;

an explanation regarding how Sue could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in the case.

The case is copied below for reference. Remember that you will not see others’ responses until you post yours.

Sue walked into Professor Smith’s classroom looking like she just rolled out of bed. She moped over to her seat wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. Sue, a senior English major and good student, did not have a good morning. She stayed up late finishing a paper, overslept, and nearly missed Professor Smith’s Colonial History class that morning.

Similarly, Professor Smith could not contain his foul mood. During his previous class, students whispered throughout the lecture and then asked questions about material that he just had covered. Not only did they not pay attention to his lecture but they got angry when he handed back an examination. He did not feel like dealing with difficult students today, especially when they wanted to argue about the exams that he spent hours developing and grading. If the students just paid attention, they would not get bad grades, he thought to himself.

As he returned the exams, he explained, “If you feel you have a right answer and I marked it wrong, you may explain your answer to receive partial credit.”

Sue raised her hand because even though she only missed one question, she was sure that she had the right answer. When Professor Smith called on her, she asked, “Could we discuss question 5?”

“Sure. How can I help?”

“The question is ‘What shape is the Earth?’ I answered that it is ‘flat’ and you marked it wrong.”

“That is the wrong answer.”

“To me, the question did not give enough detail, so I thought you wanted the answer from the colonist’s point of view because this is a Colonial History class.”

“I provided feedback about why you missed points. Please read those comments and come see me during office hours.”

Having already read the feedback, Sue was angry that they could not finish their discussion. She slammed her paper down and stormed out of the room.

Later that day, Sue had another class where the professor returned exams and asked if anyone had questions regarding exam scores. Sue had a question, but remembering how Professor Smith had embarrassed her the class period before, she decided not to ask it. She returned her exam and decided that she needed to go for a run immediately following class as running always helped her feel less stressed.

Review and Reflection about Allness

Irving J. Lee from “Talking Sense” on Allness

Irving J. Lee from “Talking Sense” on All Wall

Optional Activities

Allness Case Studies from Chapter 11 of William Haney’s Communication and organizational behavior: Text and cases.

(Published in ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Volume 65 No. 1, January 2008. Prepared for a presentation to the National Workshop on General Semantics, Vadodara, India.)

Irving J. Lee related a conversation he had with Alfred Korzybski in which Lee asked, “Now, Alfred, you have been thinking about this stuff for a very long time. Can you tell me, in a nutshell, what are you trying to do? What is the objective of all this reading and studying and talking and sweating that you go through day after day, year after year? What are you after?”

Korzybski replied to Lee, “Irving, we are trying to produce a new sort of man.” (1)

Lee goes on to describe how Korzybski attempted to describe this new sort of man in the pages of Science and Sanity. During the course of a speech he gave in 1951, Lee outlined a profile of this new sort of man that included traits and characteristics such as:

Competence, not merely in terms of knowledge, but in the application of his knowledge.

Curiosity about the world and the people around him.

Productive and efficient memory in terms of remembering the important and the significant, but forgetting the unpleasant, the petty, and the trivial.

Highly discriminating awareness of differences, nuances, and subtleties; he would never “suffer from the blindness that obliterates uniqueness.”

Integrative personality in a holistic sense; he would know and do, diagnose and prescribe, think and feel and act. He will embody both “rugged individualism” and cooperative altruism.

Unapologetic sincerity in his beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes toward those things he deemed to be relevant and significant, with an equal ability to disassociate himself from that which he determined to be unimportant and trifling.

Constant awareness that his beliefs, no matter how sincere or deeply-held, are beliefs and therefore not final Truth or Knowledge; he would not shirk from exploring what lies beyond his beliefs.

Patience in great reserves.

Sociability and friendliness without pretention.

Clarity and precision in his speaking, with confidence and without apology.

Persistence and perseverance in his endeavors, while taking care to pick his battles carefully and admitting, but ‘dating,’ his setbacks and defeats.

“Ruthless realism” to the maximum degree possible.

Cooperation, inventiveness, or steadfast determination, depending on the circumstances but always acting toward resolution and accomplishment.

Alertness to “the possibilities and potentialities of the human being,” while still recognizing the practical limitations of humanness: “Limitation of aims is the mother of wisdom and the secret of achievement,” (Goethe) and “Knowledge of the possible is the beginning of happiness.” (Santayana)

In the person of Mr. Balvant K. Parekh, Lee and Korzybski would surely have found a fellow traveler of this new sort. To support this evaluation, to publicly recognize his contributions as Time-Binder, and to illustrate the transcultural applicability of Korzybski’s system of extensional orientation (i.e., general semantics), we are pleased to present portraits of Mr. Parekh sketched in two parts.

The first part, “Felicitations” (or celebrations of an accomplishment) includes four excerpts from a book of well-wishes presented to Mr. Parekh on the occasion of his 75th birthday in 1999. These four short and very personal comments about Mr. Parekh, sampled from over one hundred published, portray representational images of him by his daughter, granddaughter, personal assistant, and recipient of his philanthropy.

The second part, “Selections from Gamta no kariye Gulal,” offers more impressionistic insights about Mr. Parekh. These statements, quotes, and articles from his own compilations of material published in his own journal, beginning in 2003, reveal much about the interests, passions, and character of this new sort of man. The title of the journal, Gamta no kariye Gulal, translates into English as, “If you get what you like, do not keep it; rather, share it.”

I hope that as you learn more about this new sort of man, you might benefit from his new sort of time-binding.